20110601Jayco Comment.pdf

~Jayco.RECE D
Jayco, Inc.
5 i i Hanns Road Sout
Kimberly, ID 8334 i
P: (208) 736- i 782
F: [phone]
2011 MAY 31 AM 8: 51
May 27,2011
Jean D. Jewell, Secrary
Idaho Public Utlities Commision
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, 10 8372Q.0074
RE: Cas No. GNR-E-11-01
In the matr of the comion's invesgaton into disaregtin and an approprte
published avoided cost rae eligibility cap structure for PURPA qualifng facilites.
Dear Secrtary Jewell:
.It has come to our attention that the Commission is reexamining the policies rearding mandatory
purchase obligations by electric utilties pursuant to the PURPA. We wnte to you to expss our concern for a
re-instatement ofthe policy.
Jayco, Inc. made the decision to establish a Manufacturing Division in Idaho in 2004 base on the
positive business climate in Idaho. Competitive energy rates being a factor out of many.
As we undersand it, the PURPA reuires the state's electric utilites to purcase output from
qualifing wind prjects at preset rae. We also understand that that rae is substantially higher than the
current free market rate. Even though Jayco is in support of development of renewable energy sources, we
do not believe that "guaranteed" price point and demand is a viable or fair approach in a free market
economy. Our competition determines the price of our prouct, providing, in the end, the be value for the
reail customer.
Just as in our business, Investment Firms developing wind energy are to be held to the same
competiive market standard. Areinstatement ofthe PURPA will increase the cost of our prouct and
therefore negatively impact our competiveness in the market place. Competitiveness being the very reason
for Jayco to move the Idaho.
We respectully ask the Commission to consider not to re-instate the PURPA as it was originally
established.
Sincerely,
Akos P. Sefcsik
Vice President of Operations
Jayco, Inc.